Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Won-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Counterclaim Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Maump, Attorney Kang-man, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 21, 2008

1. The counterclaim and the counterclaim Defendant 1 met each of the procedures for application for land transaction permission pursuant to the sale and purchase contract dated March 23, 2005 with respect to the 3 and 4 real estate listed in the separate sheet as to the Plaintiff and the counterclaim Defendant 1, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the counterclaim Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

On May 23, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate in the separate sheet located within the land transaction permission zone under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) from the counter Defendants on May 23, 2005 in the purchase price of KRW 370,00,000 (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”) and paid the total purchase price to the counter Defendants by June 30, 2005, may be recognized in full view of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence No. 1, No. 5-2, No. 4, No. 5-2, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, No. 8-1, No. 8-3, and No. 9; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Formation of obligation to implement the procedure for applying for land transaction permission

In a case where a contract is concluded with respect to the transfer or creation of rights, such as ownership, with respect to land within a land transaction permission zone, the contract is deemed as a complete legal act, except where the contract is a contract with the intention of excluding or avoiding permission from the beginning, and is finally null and void, the contract becomes retroactively effective and becomes null and void when permission is granted, and the contract becomes null and void when non-permission is granted. Thus, the parties who entered into the contract are obligated to cooperate with each other so that the contract can be completed as effective. According to the above facts, the contract of this case, which is located within the land transaction permission zone, is in the state of dynamic invalidation. Thus, the counter-party defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for applying for land transaction permission based on the land transaction permission under the contract of this case as to each of the real estate of this case, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

B. Claim and judgment of the counterclaim Defendants

(1) On February 3, 2004, with respect to the preparation of the certificate No. 7 No. 1 (Delegation letter), the counterclaim Defendants and Nonparty 2 concluded the sales contract for each of the instant real estate and signed the sales contract with the counter Defendants on or around February 3, 2004, and affixed the seal of the counter Defendants to the blank as necessary documents for the registration of ownership transfer, and did not have prepared the above power of delegation. The counter Defendants were aware that each of the instant real estate was sold to Nonparty 1 as a matter of course. The counter Defendants were aware that they did not meet the land transaction permission standards set forth in the National Land Planning and Utilization Act at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract by stealing Nonparty 1 without the land transaction permission. Ultimately, the instant claim by the counter Defendants cannot be complied with. However, as long as the purchaser was recognized as the Plaintiff as the counter-party in relation to the instant sales contract, the counter-party Defendants’ assertion that the counter-party was insufficient to deem that the counter-party 1’s name was invalid.

(2) While recognizing that the counterclaim Defendants: (a) drafted a certificate No. 8-1, 2 (each receipt); (b) but (c) asserted that the amount actually received from the counterclaim Plaintiff, including the money received from Nonparty 2, is merely KRW 320,000,000, the counterclaim Defendants asserted that the amount actually received from the counterclaim Plaintiff was merely KRW 320,000,000. However, there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge this, the counterclaim Defendants’ assertion on

3. Conclusion

Thus, since all of the counterclaim plaintiff's claims of this case seeking the fulfillment of the procedure for land transaction permission based on the contract of this case against the counterclaim defendants, they shall be accepted respectively, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Omission of Real Estate List】

Judges Cho Chang-chul